Bagley v. Price et al (INMATE 3) Doc.

3
Case 2:07-cv-00264-MHT-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
_____________________________

JAMES EDWARD BAGLEY, #182 103 *

Petitioner, *

v. * 2:07-CV-264-MHT
(WO)
CHERYL PRICE, WARDEN, et al., *

Respondents. *
____________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action is before the court on a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed

by Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections. Although

Petitioner filed this action on a form for use in filing a habeas application under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, it is clear from the allegations contained therein that this case is more appropriately

filed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Specifically, it appears from the petition and

attachments thereto that Petitioner seeks to challenge matters associated with his eligibility

for correctional incentive time under the Alabama Correctional Incentive Time Act

[“ACITA”]. Ala. Code § 14-9-40, et seq.

DISCUSSION

In general, a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief must be filed in the

district court in which a petitioner is incarcerated. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 124

S.Ct. 2711, 2718 (2004); Braden v. 30 th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484

(1973); United States v. Plain, 748 F.2d 620, 621 (11 th Cir. 1984); Blau v. United States, 566

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 2:07-cv-00264-MHT-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 2 of 3

F.2d 526, 527 (5 th Cir. 1978). Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Bibb County

Correctional Facility located in Brent, Alabama. This correctional facility is located within

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. “For

the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice, a district court may

transfer any civil action to any other district . . . where it might have been brought.” 28

U.S.C. § 1404(a). Under the circumstances of this case as outlined herein, the court

concludes that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Alabama for review and determination.1

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

for all further proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before April 9, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically identify

the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party is objecting.

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The

parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore,

it is not appealable.

1
A decision on Petitioner’s application for in forma pauperis status is reserved for ruling by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

2
 Case 2:07-cv-00264-MHT-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 3 of 3

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done, this 29 th day of March 2007.

/s/ Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE